Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) in gemcitabine refractory advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a phase II study

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) are active as first-line therapy against advanced pancreatic cancer. This study aims to evaluate the activity and tolerability of this combination in patients refractory to standard gemcitabine (GEM). A total of 33 patients (median age of 57) were included with locally advanced and metastatic evaluable diseases, who had progressed during or following GEM therapy. The GEMOX regimen consisted of 1000 mg m−2 of GEM at a 100-min infusion on day 1, followed on day 2 by 100 mg m−2 of oxaliplatin at a 2-h infusion; a cycle that was given every 2 weeks. All patients received at least one cycle of GEMOX (median 5; range 1–29). Response by 31 evaluable patients was as follows: PR: 7/31(22.6%), s.d. ⩾8 weeks: 11/31(35.5%), s.d. <8 weeks: 1/31(3.2%), PD: 12/31(38.7%). Median duration of response and TTP were 4.5 and 4.2 months, respectively. Median survival was 6 months (range 0.5–21). Clinical benefit response was observed in 17/31 patients (54.8%). Grade III/IV non-neurologic toxicities occurred in 12/33 patients (36.3%), and grade I, II, and III neuropathy in 17(51%), 3(9%), and 4(12%) patients, respectively. GEMOX is a well-tolerated, active regimen that may provide a benefit to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after progression following standard gemcitabine treatment

The ‘ins and outs’ of colonoscopy at Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre, South Africa: A practice audit of the outpatient endoscopy unit

Background. In South Africa, there are no national guidelines for the conduct or quality assessment of colonoscopy, the gold standard for investigation and diagnosis of bowel pathology.Objectives. To describe the clinical profile of patients and evaluate the practice of colonoscopy using procedural quality indicators at the Wits Donald Gordon Medical Centre (WDGMC) outpatient endoscopy unit (OEU).Methods. We conducted a prospective, clinical practice audit of colonoscopies performed on adults (≥18 years of age). A total of 1 643 patients were included in the study and variables that were collected enabled the assessment of adequacy of bowel preparation, length of withdrawal time and calculation of caecal intubation rate (CIR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We stratified PDR and ADR by sex, age, population group, withdrawal time and bowel preparation. CIR, PDR and ADR estimates were compared between patient groups by the χ2 test; Fisher’s exact test was used for 2 × 2 tables. A p-value &lt;0.05 was used. Benchmark recommendations by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) were used in this audit to assess individual endoscopist performance and that of the endoscopy unit as a whole.Results. The mean age of patients was 55.7 (standard deviation (SD) 14.4; range 18 - 91) years, ~60% were female, and the majority (75.5%) were white. Of the outpatients, 77.6% had adequate bowel preparation (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥85%). The CIR was 97.0% overall, and screening colonoscopy was 96.3% (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥90% overall and ≥95% for screening colonoscopies). The median withdrawal time for negative-result screening colonoscopies was 5.7 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 4.2 - 9.3; range 1.1 - 20.6) (ASGE/ACG benchmark ≥ 6minutes), and PDR and ADR were 27.6% and 15.6%, respectively (ASGE/ACG benchmark ADR ≥25%). We demonstrated a 23.7% increase in PDR and 14.1% increase in ADR between scopes that had mean withdrawal times of ≥6 minutes and &lt;6 minutes, respectively. Although the number of black Africans in the study was relatively small, our results showed that they have similar ADRs and PDRs to the white population group, contradicting popular belief.Conclusions. The WDGMC OEU performed reasonably well against the international guidelines, despite some inadequacy in bowel preparation and lower than recommended median withdrawal times on negative-result colonoscopy. Annual auditing of clinical practice and availability of these data in the public domain will become standard of care, making this audit a baseline for longitudinal observation, assessing the impact of interventions, and contributing to the development of local guidelines

Gemcitabine with a specific conformal 3D 5FU radiochemotherapy technique is safe and effective in the definitive management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer

The aim of this phase II study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a specific three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy technique with concurrent continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (CI 5FU) sandwiched between gemcitabine chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients with inoperable cancer in the pancreatic head or body without metastases were given gemcitabine at 1000 mg m−2 weekly for 3 weeks followed by a 1-week rest and a 6-week period of radiotherapy and concurrent CI 5FU (200 mg m−2 day−1). The defined target volume was treated to 54 Gy in 30 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy. After 4 weeks' rest, gemcitabine treatment was re-initiated for three cycles (days 1, 8, 15, q28). Forty-one patients were enrolled. At the end of radiotherapy, one patient (2.4%) had a complete response and four patients (9.6%) had a partial response; at the end of treatment, three patients (7.3%) had a complete response and two patients (4.9%) had a partial response. Median survival time was 11.7 months, median time to progression was 7.1 months, and median time to failure of local control was 11.9 months. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 46.3 and 9.8%, respectively. Treatment-related grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported by 16 (39.0%) and four (9.8%) patients, respectively. Sixteen out of 41 patients did not complete the planned treatment and nine due to disease progression. This approach to treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer is safe and promising, with good local control for a substantial proportion of patients, and merits testing in a randomised trial

A preclinical evaluation of pemetrexed and irinotecan combination as second-line chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer

Gemcitabine (GEM)-based chemotherapy is regarded as the standard treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but yields a very limited disease control. Very few studies have investigated salvage chemotherapy after failure of GEM or GEM-containing chemotherapy and preclinical studies attempting to widen the therapeutic armamentarium, not including GEM, are warranted. MIA PaCa2, CFPAC-1 and Capan-1 pancreatic cancer cell lines were treated with GEM, fluouracil (5-FU), docetaxel (DCT), oxaliplatin (OXP), irinotecan (CPT-11), pemetrexed (PMX) and raltitrexed (RTX) as single agent. Pemetrexed, inducing apoptosis with IC50s under the Cmax in the three lines tested, appeared the most effective drug as single agent. Based on these results, schedule- and concentration-dependent drug interactions (assessed using the combination index) of PMX/GEM, PMX/DCT and PMX–CPT-11 were evaluated. The combinatory study clearly indicated the PMX and CPT-11 combination as the most active against pancreatic cancer. To confirm the efficacy of PMX–CPT-11 combination, we extended the study to a panel of 10 pancreatic cancer cell lines using clinically relevant concentrations (PMX 10 μM; CPT-11 1 μm). In eight of 10 lines, the PMX–CPT-11 treatment significantly reduced cell recovery and increased both the subG1 and caspase 3/7 fraction. After a 5-day wash out period, an increased fraction of subG1 and caspase3/7 persisted in PMX–CPT-11-pretreated cell lines and a significant reduction in the clonogenicity capacity was evident. Finally, in vivo, the PMX/CPT-11 combination showed the ability to inhibit xenograft tumours growth as second-line therapy after GEM treatment. The PMX and CPT-11 combination displays a strong schedule-independent synergistic cytotoxic activity against pancreatic cancer, providing experimental basis for its clinical testing as salvage chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer patients

Resectable adenocarcinomas in the pancreatic head: the retroperitoneal resection margin is an independent prognostic factor

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal disease, and even after assumed margin-free pancreatoduodenectomy, most patients die within few years. The aims were to evaluate the importance of standardised histopathologic assessment for adequacy of reporting and survival estimates, and to report on prognostic factors in a setting of standardised histopathologic assessment. We performed immunohistochemical evaluation, slide review, and review of histopathologic reports from all pancreatoduodenectomies at Rikshospitalet University Hospital in 1980–2004. Reports from 1998-2004 at this institution were compared with reports from all other Norwegian institutions in the same period. Standardised histopathologic assessment and reporting was found necessary to avoid underestimation of poor prognostic factors, and to avoid misdiagnosis of tumours originating from non-pancreatic tissue (ampulla, distal bile duct, duodenum). Standardised histopathology was more important than surgical volume for completeness of reporting and for reliability of survival estimates, particularly with respect to lymph node evaluation. Immunostaining for MUC1 and MUC4 identified a subgroup of patients with particularly poor prognosis. Standardised histopathologic evaluation should be a first prerequisite to assure adequate histopathology after pancreatoduodenectomy. Immunostaining may identify tumour markers potentially targetable in future adjuvant treatments for pancreatic cancer

Irinotecan plus raltitrexed vs raltitrexed alone in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

There is no established second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine failure. In view of the urgent need for such therapy, and since preclinical and phase I clinical data suggest an encouraging, potentially synergistic activity between raltitrexed and irinotecan, the present randomised phase II study was initiated. A total of 38 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, who progressed while receiving or within 6 months after discontinuation of palliative first-line chemotherapy with gemcitabine, were enrolled in this study. They were randomised to 3-weekly courses of raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 1 (arm A) or irinotecan 200 mg m−2 on day 1 plus raltitrexed 3 mg m−2 on day 2 (arm B). The primary study end point was objective response, secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as clinical benefit response in symptomatic patients (n=28). In the combination arm, the IRC-confirmed objective response rate was 16% (three out of 19 patients had a partial remission; 95% CI, 3–40%), which was clearly superior to that in the comparator/control arm with raltitrexed alone, in which no response was obtained. Therefore, the trial was already stopped at the first stage of accrual. Also, the secondary study end points, median PFS (2.5 vs 4.0 months), OS (4.3 vs 6.5 months), and clinical benefit response (8 vs 29%) were superior in the combination arm. The objective and subjective benefits of raltitrexed+irinotecan were not negated by severe, clinically relevant treatment-related toxicities: gastrointestinal symptoms (42 vs 68%), partial alopecia (0 vs 42%), and cholinergic syndrome (0 vs 21%) were more commonly noted in arm B; however, grade 3 adverse events occurred in only three patients in both treatment groups. Our data indicate that combined raltitrexed+irinotecan seems to be an effective salvage regimen in patients with gemcitabine-pretreated pancreatic cancer. The superior response activity, PFS and OS (when compared to raltitrexed), as well as its tolerability and ease of administration suggest that future trials with this combination are warranted

Primary resection versus neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by resection for locally resectable or potentially resectable pancreatic carcinoma without distant metastasis. A multi-centre prospectively randomised phase II-study of the Interdisciplinary Working Group Gastrointestinal Tumours (AIO, ARO, and CAO)

BACKGROUND: The disappointing results of surgical therapy alone of ductal pancreatic cancer can only be improved using multimodal approaches. In contrast to adjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation is able to facilitate resectability with free margins and to lower lymphatic spread. Another advantage is better tolerability which consecutively allows applying multimodal treatment in a higher number of patients. Furthermore, the synopsis of the overall survival results of neoadjuvant trials suggests a higher rate compared to adjuvant trials. METHODS/DESIGN: As there are no prospectively randomised studies for neoadjuvant therapy, the Interdisciplinary Study Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours of the German Cancer Aid has started such a trial. The study investigates the effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in locally resectable or probably resectable cancer of the pancreatic head without distant metastasis on median overall survival time compared to primary surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy is integrated into both arms. DISCUSSION: The protocol of the study is presented in condensed form after an introducing survey on adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer

Gastrazole (JB95008), a novel CCK2/gastrin receptor antagonist, in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: results from two randomised controlled trials

Gastrin has been shown to be a growth stimulant in pancreatic cancer cells. Gastrazole is a potent and selective gastrin receptor antagonist. Two randomised blinded trials were conducted to assess the effect of gastrazole in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients with biopsy-proven, inoperable pancreatic carcinoma were recruited. Trial A compared protracted venous infusion (PVI) gastrazole with PVI placebo, whereas trial B compared PVI gastrazole with PVI fluorouracil (5-FU). Eighteen patients were randomised in trial A. Gastrazole produced significantly better survival compared to placebo (median 7.9 months vs 4.5 months; 1-year survival: 33 vs 11%, respectively; log rank P=0.02). No difference in toxicity was seen between gastrazole and placebo, except central venous catheter and pump complications. Ninety-eight patients were randomised in trial B. No significant survival difference was detected between gastrazole and 5-FU (median: 3.6 vs 4.2 months; 1-year survival: 13.2 vs 26.2%, respectively; log rank P=0.42). Toxicity of gastrazole was mild with significantly less diarrhoea (P=0.03), stomatitis (P<0.001) and hand– foot syndrome (P<0.001) compared to 5-FU. Quality of life (QoL) assessment showed similar QoL between gastrazole and 5-FU at baseline and no significant differences occurred with treatment either between arms or within arms. Compared to placebo, patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with gastrazole appeared to live longer, albeit in a very small trial and will require confirmation with large-scale randomised data. However, it did not produce survival advantage over PVI 5-FU. Lack of toxicity for gastrazole may allow its combination with cytotoxic drugs

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85–1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70–0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72–0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46–0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32–2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15–1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07–2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37–2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24–2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87–3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity

Is there a role for the quantification of RRM1 and ERCC1 expression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>RRM1 and ERCC1 overexpression has been extensively investigated as potential predictive markers of tumor sensitivity to conventional chemotherapy agents, most thoroughly in lung cancer. However, data in pancreatic cancer are scarce.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We investigated the mRNA and protein expression of ERCC1 and RRM1 by RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDA) tissues. The primary outcome investigated was the association between RRM1 and ERCC1 expression and overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 94 patients with resected PDA were included in this study. Most of them (87%) received gemcitabine based chemotherapy. Data for OS analysis was available in all cases but only 68% had enough information to estimate DFS. IHC analysis revealed information for 99% (93/94) and 100% of the cases for RRM1 and ERCC1 expression respectively. However, PCR data interpretation was possible in only 49 (52%) and 79 (84%) cases respectively. There was no significant association between high or low expression of either RRM1 or ERCC1, detected by IHC and OS (14.4 vs. 19.9 months; <it>P </it>= 0.5 and 17.1 vs. 19.9; <it>P </it>= 0.83 respectively) or PCR and OS (48.0 vs. 24.1 months; <it>P </it>= 0.21 and 22.0 vs. 16.0 months; <it>P </it>= 0.39 respectively). Similar results were obtained for DFS.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>RRM1 and ERCC1 expression does not seem to have a clear predictive or prognostic value in pancreatic cancer. Our data raise some questions regarding the real clinical and practical significance of analyzing these molecules as predictors of outcomes.</p